MLB Changes 2017

[Gothamite]

MLB has veto power over nicknames, why wouldn't they have influence over logos and uniforms?

[Dra---]

9 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

MLB has veto power over nicknames, why wouldn't they have influence over logos and uniforms?

 

Good point, but I'm wondering what the nature of their influence over logos and uniforms is. Is it as strong as a veto or does it take some other shape? How much freedom do teams have to disagree with MLB and design uniforms exactly as they like?

 

Another question: what is MLB's logic behind wanting the padres to cut yellow? Dennis Lin suggested they value a "streamlined" look. That suggests they think there's something messy about brown, yellow, white, which I have a hard time seeing.

 

I'm open to the brown and white only look, but I'm just surprised that yellow of all colors would be seen as a problem by MLB.

[MJD7]

12 minutes ago, Dra--- said:

 

Another question: what is MLB's logic behind wanting the padres to cut yellow? Dennis Lin suggested they value a "streamlined" look. That suggests they think there's something messy about brown, yellow, white, which I have a hard time seeing.

 

I'm open to the brown and white only look, but I'm just surprised that yellow of all colors would be seen as a problem by MLB.

Yea, if anything I'd think MLB would take the opposite route on it, considering the brown and yellow has a long history in San Diego and is what most people I'd say seem to think of as their "scheme" if forced to choose.

 

Especially with all of the positive advertising MLB seemed to have of the throwback Home Run Derby jerseys on social media this year, you'd think they'd be encouraging the unique colors as opposed to forbidding them. 

[SilverBullet1929]

If MLB is influencing uniform designs and the DBacks had the last uniform overhaul I'm full expecting navy, white, brown, sand, and yellow uniforms with subliminated Marine camo patterns down the shoulders, up the calves, and under the armpits. Why not? It might not be any more disjointed than the Padres entire uniform history.

 

I seriously think someone should do a Padres mockup with the exact same concepts and ideas that the DBacks pulled last year. It would be quite entertaining.

[hawk36]

16 hours ago, Dra--- said:

In a UT chat a few months back, Lin stated that MLB was trying to get the Padres to "streamline" their look by ditching yellow. He said he'd been told they will go with a more streamlined brown uniform.

Could streamline mean getting a good, solid, traditional brand and actually sticking to it? What did they have, 6 uniforms last season? They've also had 40+ unis in their history. Crazy. I hope streamline means getting a great look that's their own (brown+yellow/orange) and sticking with it.

[dont care]

5 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

If MLB is influencing uniform designs and the DBacks had the last uniform overhaul I'm full expecting navy, white, brown, sand, and yellow uniforms with subliminated Marine camo patterns down the shoulders, up the calves, and under the armpits. Why not? It might not be any more disjointed than the Padres entire uniform history.

 

I seriously think someone should do a Padres mockup with the exact same concepts and ideas that the DBacks pulled last year. It would be quite entertaining.

If that's what you want to call it. I'd call it nauseating 

[SilverBullet1929]

1 minute ago, dont care said:

If that's what you want to call it. I'd call it nauseating 

Yeah I meant entertaining in a mocking, comedic form. Definitely wouldn't be pretty but I'd laugh at it's ridiculousness.

[Beeperino]

On 10/10/2016 at 2:32 PM, McCarthy said:

You know what is crazy to think about? The current uniforms that have been in use since 2007 have now lasted longer than the 93-98 pinstriped vests or the 99-06 BFBS vests.

 

The ball club is due for a change. A full throwback is the correct way to go.  

 

I think a big problem that often goes unmentioned is that the current set is trying to have it both ways between black and white as accent colors for the red.  In the set used in 1970s-1992, white was the accent color. It's obvious on the road unis, but invisible (naturally) on the white home unis:

 

 

In the 1960s, black was the primary accent color:

 

 

Even a black hat has some precedent before the late '90s (which, in my opinion, partially absolves them from the BFBS category; key: "partially"):

 

 

Back to the current set, they've added the "old timey" script (which is hard enough to read on its own) and then coupled it with BOTH a white outline AND a black dropshadow:

 

Either one has its merits, but for the sake of everyone's eyes (especially the wordmark on the road uni), then need to pick ONE please.  At this point, I'm even agnostic about which one it should be.  But the combination of old timey, outline, and drop shadow is just too much on the same uniform. If they really want to have both, they should maybe do black on the home unis (subtly, like the blue on STL's home unis) and white on the road.

[kroywen]

If they want to use black trim is moderation - basically nothing more than a black outline (not a dropshadow) and perhaps a black bill on the road cap, I'd be okay with it. I'd prefer the Reds being just a straight red/white team, but a tasteful black outline would be fine. 

 

The existing old-timey font and dropshadow have to go though.

[SilverBullet1929]

1 hour ago, Beeperino said:

 

I think a big problem that often goes unmentioned is that the current set is trying to have it both ways between black and white as accent colors for the red.  In the set used in 1970s-1992, white was the accent color. It's obvious on the road unis, but invisible (naturally) on the white home unis:

 

 

In the 1960s, black was the primary accent color:

 

 

Even a black hat has some precedent before the late '90s (which, in my opinion, partially absolves them from the BFBS category; key: "partially"):

 

 

Back to the current set, they've added the "old timey" script (which is hard enough to read on its own) and then coupled it with BOTH a white outline AND a black dropshadow:

 

Either one has its merits, but for the sake of everyone's eyes (especially the wordmark on the road uni), then need to pick ONE please.  At this point, I'm even agnostic about which one it should be.  But the combination of old timey, outline, and drop shadow is just too much.

Great informative post, I didn't know they used black in the 60s. And your point about white in the 70s as being part of their color scheme is interesting. It makes me think about teams that actually use white as opposed to white just being the color that their logos and wordmarks are placed against. Off the top of my head I'd say white is a specific part of the color scheme for the Reds, Dodgers, Yankees, Phillies, and White Sox. So back to the Reds, I think it'd do them wonders to be back to a "red and white" team.

[What Can Brown Do For You]

On October 11, 2016 at 5:29 PM, TheOatsMustFlow said:

 

That's interesting too. From what I read about the initial Diamondbacks red rebrand, the organization cites that it was the MLB that told the team that they needed to move away from purple because it was hard to match, didn't show up well on TV and in print and/or often looked blue, and didn't sell well. It seems surprising that the MLB tries to influence the looks of teams, then again maybe not, considering that majority of the league is red or blue.

 

Where was the MLB on this latest Diamondbacks monstrosity??? Dropped the ball on that one.

 

Maybe it's a combination of both, but I heard that MLB told DBacks to change because they didn't want more than one purple team in the division, and Rockies had it first (also could make sense for them pushing Padres to go brown)

[WSU151]

6 hours ago, What Can Brown Do For You said:

Maybe it's a combination of both, but I heard that MLB told DBacks to change because they didn't want more than one purple team in the division, and Rockies had it first (also could make sense for them pushing Padres to go brown)

 

I really don't think MLB cares about what teams have similar colors within the division.  The Braves and Nationals have the exact same colors in the NL East.  They're more worried about sales and presentation.

[Gothamite]

Yeah, I'd be very interested to know where some of these stories are coming from. 

[Cujo]

43 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Yeah, I'd be very interested to know where some of these stories are coming from. 

 

"I read it on twitter" or "A guy working at Sports Authority told me".

[AstroCree]

29 minutes ago, Cujo said:

 

"I read it on twitter" or "A guy working at Sports Authority told me".

"My uncle works at Majestic and told me." 

[Sec19Row53]

4 hours ago, insert name said:

"My uncle works at Majestic and told me." 

It's my logic, but it sounds better if it came from somewhere else

[panthers_2012]

5 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Yeah, I'd be very interested to know where some of these stories are coming from. 

From his father's, brother's, nephew's, cousin's former roommate.

[Sodboy13]

TSN's Rick Westhead is reporting MLB will switch jersey suppliers from Majestic to Under Armour in 2020. It's weirdly phrased though, as he claims "Under Armour and Fanatics" will be taking over, and Fanatics doesn't brand or manufacture apparel. If true, though, if you think Majestic is trotting out some crap, wait until UA gives you a league full of its ideas.

[phutmasterflex]

Doesn't Fanatics run MLB Shop? Maybe that is what he means?

[Bucs007]

More info on the rumored UA/Fanatics deal. 

 

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2016/10/17/Marketing-and-Sponsorship/Under-Armour.aspx